WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

1970--
Wimbledon champion Newcombe, US champion Rosewall, and Laver (who won the most titles and had a 3–0 win-loss record against Newcombe and a 5–0 record against Rosewall) were ranked the highest by different journalists and expert panels. Although Newcombe was top ranked by Lance Tingay, Newcombe wrote later in his autobiography "Newk-Life on and off the Court" (2002) that the top honor in 1970 belonged to Laver.

Click to expand...

hoodjem, I don't know of any expert or panel who or which ranked Laver No.1 in 1970. Please clarify.

Typical Aussie modesty perhaps? I agree with him though. Laver was the best player that year, he dominated the two guys in the running with him both in the h2h and more importantly in the sheer number of titles.

Click to expand...

NatF, I must again contradict: Laver was not the best player in 1970. He failed badly when it most mattered. Thus Collins, Tingay and McCauley only ranked him No.4 and No.3 respectively. Martini and Rosso panel ranked him second behind Rosewall.

NatF, I must again contradict: Laver was not the best player in 1970. He failed badly when it most mattered. Thus Collins, Tingay and McCauley only ranked him No.4 and No.3 respectively. Martini and Rosso panel ranked him second behind Rosewall.

Click to expand...

I respect your opinion (and that of the experts) but...I disagree . I think Laver would be the #1 player under most computer systems. At the time clearly the rankings bias towards Wimbledon and USO performance. There's some grounds to that for sure but I think the gap in tournaments won (some of which were still quite large) is just too big.

This looks like ATP data. In any event, it seems completely unfair to pre-open players. I would guess Rosewall's weeks at #1 are well over 100 and probably close to 150, and Laver's weeks at #1 are probably over 300.

I respect your opinion (and that of the experts) but...I disagree . I think Laver would be the #1 player under most computer systems. At the time clearly the rankings bias towards Wimbledon and USO performance. There's some grounds to that for sure but I think the gap in tournaments won (some of which were still quite large) is just too big.

Typical Aussie modesty perhaps? I agree with him though. Laver was the best player that year, he dominated the two guys in the running with him both in the h2h and more importantly in the sheer number of titles.

Click to expand...

Indeed! As I explained in another thread, based on the current ATP point allocation system:

In 1970, Laver won a total of 15 titles: the Dunlop International, plus 4 more Masters 1,000 equivalent titles, the Tennis Champions Classic (arguably another major equivalent or super major and the top prize money event of the year), and 9 more smaller titles. Based on the current ATP ranking points system a major is worth 2000 points and a Masters is worth 1,000 points. Therefore:

1) 5 of Laver's titles are worth either 5,000 or 6,000 points depending on whether you value the Dunlop as a Major or Masters equivalent.
2) The value of the TCC could be 1,000, 2,000 points or more depending on whether you value that as a Major, a Masters equivalent, or Supermajor.
3) Assuming, arguendo, that the remaining 9 titles are smaller ATP 500 equivalent events, they total of 4,500 points.

Therefore, Laver's ATP equivalent points for 1970 would total from a minimum of 10,500 to 12,500 (or more), depending on the value you give the Dunlop and the TCC.

Rosewall won a total of 6 titles: 1 major and 5 ATP 500 equivalent titles for a total of 4,500 points.

Newcombe won a total of 3 titles: 1 major and 2 ATP 500 equivalent titles for a total of 3,000 points.

Indeed! As I explained in another thread, based on the current ATP point allocation system:

In 1970, Laver won a total of 15 titles: the Dunlop International, plus 4 more Masters 1,000 equivalent titles, the Tennis Champions Classic (arguably another major equivalent or super major and the top prize money event of the year), and 9 more smaller titles. Based on the current ATP ranking points system a major is worth 2000 points and a Masters is worth 1,000 points. Therefore:

1) 5 of Laver's titles are worth either 5,000 or 6,000 points depending on whether you value the Dunlop as a Major or Masters equivalent.
2) The value of the TCC could be 1,000, 2,000 points or more depending on whether you value that as a Major, a Masters equivalent, or Supermajor.
3) Assuming, arguendo, that the remaining 9 titles are smaller ATP 500 equivalent events, they total of 4,500 points.

Therefore, Laver's ATP equivalent points for 1970 would total from a minimum of 10,500 to 12,500 (or more), depending on the value you give the Dunlop and the TCC.

Rosewall won a total of 6 titles: 1 major and 5 ATP 500 equivalent titles for a total of 3,500 points.

Newcombe won a total of 3 titles: 1 major and 2 ATP 500 equivalent titles for a total of 2,000 points.

I corrected Rosewall's and Newcombe's point totals which should read 4,500 and 3,000 respectively. It should be pointed out that none of the totals include points earned for winning matches in earlier rounds but not winning the event. I don't have that data. But, I doubt that any such points could close the gaping divide between Laver and his closest rivals in points for events won. In fact, it seems more likely that including Laver's points for matches won when he didn't win the event would widen the gap further.

I respect your opinion (and that of the experts) but...I disagree . I think Laver would be the #1 player under most computer systems. At the time clearly the rankings bias towards Wimbledon and USO performance. There's some grounds to that for sure but I think the gap in tournaments won (some of which were still quite large) is just too big.

Click to expand...

Dan, It's NOT always computer system as I explained earlier. Otherwise Connors is alone the No.1 player in 1977.

I corrected Rosewall's and Newcombe's point totals which should read 4,500 and 3,000 respectively. It should be pointed out that none of the totals include points earned for winning matches in earlier rounds but not winning the event. I don't have that data. But, I doubt that any such points could close the gaping divide between Laver and his closest rivals in points for events won. In fact, it seems more likely that including Laver's points for matches won when he didn't win the event would widen the gap further.

Click to expand...

I actually wrote something similar on my home computer but didn't post it yet. It was comparing Sampras and Lendl and our overemphasis on majors. Posting from my car now while parked.

Overall match stats for 1970 (after Andrew Tas): Laver 90-15 (win-loss margin 75 matches), Rosewall 71-21 (margin 50 matches). Laver had a 25 matches better win margin, that is better by a cool 25% of matches played. The poster slasher (with help of elegos) made an exact reconstruction of the ATP Computer System since spring 1968 on a week per week basis. This is posted elsewhere here on this forum. Following this data, Laver had 187 weeks at Nr. 1 in open era alone, including the whole year 1970.
The paper rankings of 1970 were divided. Some experts had Newcombe at Nr. 1 (Tingay, McCauley,Collins). The Martini and Rosso panel had Rosewall at Nr. 1, the experts panel, that made the WCT Rankings, had Laver at Nr. 1. My source is a lengthy WCT program of the Cologne event of 1971, which i attended. Laver was seeded 1 at the first WCT tournaments 1971, Philadelphia and Australian Open.

Dan, It's NOT always computer system as I explained earlier. Otherwise Connors is alone the No.1 player in 1977.

Click to expand...

Confusing me for Dan again I think Dan might agree with you about Laver not being #1.

We've already discussed the computer ranking in 1977. The system back then was flawed compared to todays. You're misconstruing my argument as "any computer ranking system" when I actually mean specific systems. It's clear to me that 9 titles difference is quite vast and makes up for Laver winning lesser majors than Wimbledon and the USO.

Overall match stats for 1970 (after Andrew Tas): Laver 90-15 (win-loss margin 75 matches), Rosewall 71-21 (margin 50 matches). Laver had a 25 matches better win margin, that is better by a cool 25% of matches played. The poster slasher (with help of elegos) made an exact reconstruction of the ATP Computer System since spring 1968 on a week per week basis. This is posted elsewhere here on this forum. Following this data, Laver had 187 weeks at Nr. 1 in open era alone, including the whole year 1970.
The paper rankings of 1970 were divided. Some experts had Newcombe at Nr. 1 (Tingay, McCauley,Collins). The Martini and Rosso panel had Rosewall at Nr. 1, the experts panel, that made the WCT Rankings, had Laver at Nr. 1. My source is a lengthy WCT program of the Cologne event of 1971, which i attended. Laver was seeded 1 at the first WCT tournaments 1971, Philadelphia and Australian Open.

Click to expand...

Wow! If Laver had 187 weeks at #1 after the Spring of 1968, and another probable 150+ weeks at #1 before then, his total would be 337+ weeks at #1. It seems a sham that Laver's WCT record is largely ignored on this board apparently because he didn't win the final.

Confusing me for Dan again I think Dan might agree with you about Laver not being #1.

We've already discussed the computer ranking in 1977. The system back then was flawed compared to todays. You're misconstruing my argument as "any computer ranking system" when I actually mean specific systems. It's clear to me that 9 titles difference is quite vast and makes up for Laver winning lesser majors than Wimbledon and the USO.

Overall match stats for 1970 (after Andrew Tas): Laver 90-15 (win-loss margin 75 matches), Rosewall 71-21 (margin 50 matches). Laver had a 25 matches better win margin, that is better by a cool 25% of matches played. The poster slasher (with help of elegos) made an exact reconstruction of the ATP Computer System since spring 1968 on a week per week basis. This is posted elsewhere here on this forum. Following this data, Laver had 187 weeks at Nr. 1 in open era alone, including the whole year 1970.
The paper rankings of 1970 were divided. Some experts had Newcombe at Nr. 1 (Tingay, McCauley,Collins). The Martini and Rosso panel had Rosewall at Nr. 1, the experts panel, that made the WCT Rankings, had Laver at Nr. 1. My source is a lengthy WCT program of the Cologne event of 1971, which i attended. Laver was seeded 1 at the first WCT tournaments 1971, Philadelphia and Australian Open.

Indeed! As I explained in another thread, based on the current ATP point allocation system:

In 1970, Laver won a total of 15 titles: the Dunlop International, plus 4 more Masters 1,000 equivalent titles, the Tennis Champions Classic (arguably another major equivalent or super major and the top prize money event of the year), and 9 more smaller titles. Based on the current ATP ranking points system a major is worth 2000 points and a Masters is worth 1,000 points. Therefore:

1) 5 of Laver's titles are worth either 5,000 or 6,000 points depending on whether you value the Dunlop as a Major or Masters equivalent.
2) The value of the TCC could be 1,000, 2,000 points or more depending on whether you value that as a Major, a Masters equivalent, or Supermajor.
3) Assuming, arguendo, that the remaining 9 titles are smaller ATP 500 equivalent events, they total of 4,500 points.

Therefore, Laver's ATP equivalent points for 1970 would total from a minimum of 10,500 to 12,500 (or more), depending on the value you give the Dunlop and the TCC.

Rosewall won a total of 6 titles: 1 major and 5 ATP 500 equivalent titles for a total of 4,500 points.

Newcombe won a total of 3 titles: 1 major and 2 ATP 500 equivalent titles for a total of 3,000 points.

This looks like ATP data. In any event, it seems completely unfair to pre-open players. I would guess Rosewall's weeks at #1 are well over 100 and probably close to 150, and Laver's weeks at #1 are probably over 300.

Click to expand...

No, it's not ATP data. It is just a simplified system using just slams (I explained it in one of the posts). Open Era only, so the weeks for Laver don't include before 1968.

Overall match stats for 1970 (after Andrew Tas): Laver 90-15 (win-loss margin 75 matches), Rosewall 71-21 (margin 50 matches). Laver had a 25 matches better win margin, that is better by a cool 25% of matches played. The poster slasher (with help of elegos) made an exact reconstruction of the ATP Computer System since spring 1968 on a week per week basis. This is posted elsewhere here on this forum. Following this data, Laver had 187 weeks at Nr. 1 in open era alone, including the whole year 1970.
The paper rankings of 1970 were divided. Some experts had Newcombe at Nr. 1 (Tingay, McCauley,Collins). The Martini and Rosso panel had Rosewall at Nr. 1, the experts panel, that made the WCT Rankings, had Laver at Nr. 1. My source is a lengthy WCT program of the Cologne event of 1971, which i attended. Laver was seeded 1 at the first WCT tournaments 1971, Philadelphia and Australian Open.

Click to expand...

urban, Yes, Laver was No.1 in the WCT tournament series. But nobody ranked him No.1 generally for 1970.

Confusing me for Dan again I think Dan might agree with you about Laver not being #1.

We've already discussed the computer ranking in 1977. The system back then was flawed compared to todays. You're misconstruing my argument as "any computer ranking system" when I actually mean specific systems. It's clear to me that 9 titles difference is quite vast and makes up for Laver winning lesser majors than Wimbledon and the USO.

Click to expand...

NatF, In a computer system but not at usual rankings by experts. I think that Collins, Tingay, McCauley, the Martini and Rosso panel were intelligent experts.

Wow! If Laver had 187 weeks at #1 after the Spring of 1968, and another probable 150+ weeks at #1 before then, his total would be 337+ weeks at #1. It seems a sham that Laver's WCT record is largely ignored on this board apparently because he didn't win the final.

Confusing me for Dan again I think Dan might agree with you about Laver not being #1.

We've already discussed the computer ranking in 1977. The system back then was flawed compared to todays. You're misconstruing my argument as "any computer ranking system" when I actually mean specific systems. It's clear to me that 9 titles difference is quite vast and makes up for Laver winning lesser majors than Wimbledon and the USO.

Click to expand...

Right you are....I regard Wimbledon and Forest Hills as the "High Noon" and "For Whom the Bell Tolls" of the tennis world....Newcombe and Rosewall share number one for me that year.

Right you are....I regard Wimbledon and Forest Hills as the "High Noon" and "For Whom the Bell Tolls" of the tennis world....Newcombe and Rosewall share number one for me that year.

Click to expand...

Newcombe won three tournaments in 1970: Casablanca, Wimbledon, and Hoylake UK. That's all.

Otherwise in 1970 he lost to Laver three times (Queen's Club, Louisville, and Los Angeles), and to Rosewall four times (Corpus Christi, St. Louis, Newport Wales, and the US Open), with only the one win over Rosewall in the 1970 Wimbledon final.

I think now that we have more statistical information I think we can truthfully say that I believe John Newcombe was not number one in 1970. I also believe that since the system really hasn't changed in deciding number one that both Rosewall and Laver were ahead of Newcombe. The experts in those days were not privy to the info we have now.

Incidentally, with all his ability I am amazed that John Newcombe did not have a record close to that players like Sampras, Nadal and Rosewall. He never seemed to maintain it for an entire year.

Newcombe won three tournaments in 1970: Casablanca, Wimbledon, and Hoylake UK. That's all.

Otherwise he lost to Laver three times (Queen's Club, Louisville, and Los Angeles), and to Rosewall four times (Corpus Christi, St. Louis, Newport Wales, and the US Open), with only the one win over Rosewall in the Wimbledon final.

Click to expand...

hoodjem, Yes, Rosewall seems to have a better claim for No.1 than Newcombe in 1970. Altogether their hth was 5:2. Rosewall also was ahead in the WCT list and in the Grand Prix list.

So obviously it's down to Laver and Rosewall as it happened so often in history.

Numerically by the info we have today I believe it's clearly Laver. Laver won the Dunlop, essentially a major, the Philadephia indoor, the South African Open, TCC, Canadian Open and Pacific Southwest among his 15 tournaments won. That's impressive.

I think now that we have more statistical information I think we can truthfully say that I believe John Newcombe was not number one in 1970. I also believe that since the system really hasn't changed in deciding number one that both Rosewall and Laver were ahead of Newcombe. The experts in those days were not privy to the info we have now.

Incidentally, with all his ability I am amazed that John Newcombe did not have a record close to that players like Sampras, Nadal and Rosewall. He never seemed to maintain it for an entire year.

Click to expand...

I think that the status of both Wimbledon and Forest Hills was enhanced by the advent of open tennis in 1968, as the quality of the fields increased enormously for both events....they became the summit of tennis supremacy, and had disproportionate weight in determining the dominant figure in the public mind.

I don't like, if someone twists my words. The panel i mentioned made a world ranking for the whole 1970, not WCT alone. This is also confirmed by Carlo Colussi's research. It was the panel that also selected and ranked the 32 WCT Players for 1971.

I don't like, if someone twists my words. The panel i mentioned made a world ranking for the whole 1970, not WCT alone. This is also confirmed by Carlo Colussi's research. It was the panel that also selected and ranked the 32 WCT Players for 1971.

Click to expand...

urban, I'm sorry if I have twisted your words. But I still doubt that the panel did an overall ranking for 1970 beyond the 1970 WCT rankings. Please note: The WCT season went over (almost) the whole year.

However, it would be the only panel or expert which or who ranked Laver first for 1970, as far as I know.

I wonder if a panel for WCT series in 1970 and 1971 would consider also the Grand Slam tournaments (but I cannot exclude it of course).

Laver is #1 for 1970 because his accomplishments outweigh those of his nearest competitors by more than double, and he completely dominated them in match play - he was undefeated against them 8-0. Laver was not only the best player, he had the best record. It is not a close call. It was another dominant year for Laver. Rosewall was at best

Laver is #1 for 1970 because his accomplishments outweigh those of his nearest competitors by more than double, and he completely dominated them in match play - he was undefeated against them 8-0. Laver was not only the best player, he had the best record. It is not a close call. It was another dominant year for Laver. Rosewall was at best

Click to expand...

Limpinhitter, Your argumentation would only be right if we exclude the two biggest events of the year (what you seem to do actually).

I'm sure Laver would gladly have given away some of his winning tournaments for getting the Wimbledon or US title.His accomplishments don't outweigh those of Rosewall and Newcombe and not at all by more than double. Absurd claim! Laver not only did not win a GS tournament. He also did not reach a GS final. He also did not reach a GS SF. He even did not reach a GS QF. Dominant year for the Rocket? Most contemporary experts all totally wrong?

Laver is clearly the #1 player of 1970. The much closer question is whether Newcombe or Rosewall should be ranked #2 for 1970. If it can be said that Wimbledon and the USO were more prestigious than the FO and AO, then it can just as easily be said that Wimbledon is more prestigious than the USO, which it is. Therefore, perhaps Newcombe, who beat Rosewall in the final of the most prestigious traditional major of the year, should be ranked #2 and Rosewall should be ranked #3 since he only won 6 events for the whole year and only the second most prestigious traditional major.

PS: The most credible expert who has published an opinion on the subject, John Newcombe, says that Laver is the #1 player for 1970.

Laver is clearly the #1 player of 1970. The much closer question is whether Newcombe or Rosewall should be ranked #2 for 1970. If it can be said that Wimbledon and the USO were more prestigious than the FO and AO, then it can just as easily be said that Wimbledon is more prestigious than the USO, which it is. Therefore, perhaps Newcombe, who beat Rosewall in the final of the most prestigious traditional major of the year, should be ranked #2 and Rosewall should be ranked #3 since he only won 6 events for the whole year and only the second most prestigious traditional major.

PS: The most credible expert who has published an opinion on the subject, John Newcombe, says that Laver is the #1 player for 1970.

I have been in contact with one of the players who participated in this 130 day Pro Tour in 1964 which had Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Buchholz, Gimeno, Hoad, Olmedo, Ayala. That tour was NOT for the World Championship but simply a part of the Pro Schedule. Rosewall won that tour but did NOT clinch the World Title.

So given this clarifying information and given the fact that Laver himself confirmed that he took over as number one late in 1964 it's now a no brainer pick imo that Laver was the number one player of 1964. Joe McCauley was incorrect in his book. The article, written by Buchholz did not indicate that Rosewall was World Champion because he won the tour although I can see how one can be misled by the wording.

I have been in contact with one of the players who participated in this 130 day Pro Tour in 1964 which had Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Buchholz, Gimeno, Hoad, Olmedo, Ayala. That tour was NOT for the World Championship but simply a part of the Pro Schedule. Rosewall won that tour but did NOT clinch the World Title.

So given this clarifying information and given the fact that Laver himself confirmed that he took over as number one late in 1964 it's now a no brainer pick imo that Laver was the number one player of 1964. Joe McCauley was incorrect in his book. The article, written by Buchholz did not indicate that Rosewall was World Champion because he won the tour although I can see how one can be misled by the wording.